AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves appellants' claims for legal malpractice against the Rubin Katz Law Firm, related to the handling of water rights litigation. The appellants argued that the law firm made false representations and failed to diligently pursue their legal malpractice claims, which were first brought to the firm's attention in 2010. The litigation over water rights, which the appellants contended could not be pursued until its conclusion in 2017, was central to the dispute.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Contended that the court's proposed disposition misunderstood the facts regarding the nature of water rights litigation and the false representations made by the appellee. They argued that their malpractice claims could not be brought until the conclusion of the water rights adjudication in 2017 and that they had made extensive diligent efforts in the litigation.
• Appellee: Supported the court's proposed disposition, arguing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing diligent pursuit of their legal malpractice claims, which should have been recognized and acted upon earlier than claimed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellants' claims for legal malpractice were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the appellants met their burden of showing diligent pursuit of their legal malpractice claims.

Disposition

• The district court’s order dismissing the appellants' claims for legal malpractice as barred by the statute of limitations was affirmed.

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurring, found that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing diligent pursuit of their legal malpractice claims. The court was unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments regarding the nature of water rights litigation and the timing for bringing malpractice claims. The court noted that the appellants had alleged knowledge of relevant facts and evidence regarding water rights prior to 2017, which contradicted their assertion that the claims could not be pursued until the water rights adjudication concluded. Additionally, the court found that the appellants did not provide sufficient details or direct the court to specific parts of the record to support their claims of misrepresentations by the appellee. The appellants' repetition of earlier arguments without pointing out specific errors in law or fact did not fulfill their burden to oppose the proposed disposition (paras 1-6).